Women of Cover

Mort · Post by **Mort** » May 28, 2003, 12:07 pm

The beginning of the end.... the ACLU will not stop until this country is fucking destroyed. This pisses me off to no end.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2071874.stm

More up to date....
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/storie ... 30137.html

And another thing, WTF did she do on her Passport? You think that attitude would fly?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 28, 2003, 12:10 pm

So what's the problem?

If the courts have any sense they'll let her have the right to wear a veil in her photograph but that won't make the photograph valid. If her religious freedom is so important she won't mind being unable to drive if that's Allah's will.

Reminds me of the Sikh's campaigning to be exempt from wearing motorcycle crash helmets here in the UK.
They lost.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 28, 2003, 3:00 pm

You do not have the RIGHT to drive a vehicle in the U.S. It is a privilige that can be revoked and has limitations. You cannot hop into any vehicle you feel like and drive. You must show qualifications and pass exams. When they start blowing away common sense laws, there will be major problems.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 28, 2003, 3:07 pm

i dont think this woman will win her case.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 28, 2003, 3:14 pm

This is one of those situations where if the State would've just made an exception, it would've saved everyone a whole lot of trouble. I mean really, who fucking cares that she's wearing a veil? Does the State have to make such a big deal out of it? If anything, she'll be a bit easier to identify in FLORIDA. WEARING ALL BLACK IN 100+ DEGREE WEATHER.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 28, 2003, 3:40 pm

This is a rather interesting case just from a stand point of where religious freedom ends. I mean unless I'm mistaken a devote Muslim woman must not show her face except for her eyes in public. So if she is forced to remove it to take the picture or to remove it when an officer wants to make sure that it is her then her right to religious freedom would be violated. It's a pretty small and really petty incident, as far as the state is concerned and I do believe it's a bigger deal for the woman since it involves faith in her god and religion. I would think that conservatives would be a bit supportive of the woman's religious rights since some profess to have the most faith.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 28, 2003, 3:54 pm

I can respect an individuals freedon of belief/religion but not when it is used to circumvent existing laws.
Laws should, in all cases should take precedence over religious beliefs.

A drivers license is a form of identification.
You can't accruately identify someone from only their eyes.

Drivers licenses require a 'full face' photograph.
Having 95% of your face covered is not 'full face'.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 28, 2003, 4:13 pm

Well laws cannot override constitutional rights unless the use of said right infringes upon the rights of others or the greater good AFAIK.

However, what exactly is freedom of religion? I always considered it the right to practice said religion free from prosecution, harassment, and prejudice. Is it even guaranteed that you can practice said religion in public?

I can only see a very weak prejudice argument to support the woman in this case.

It is her religion preventing her from driving, not the state.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » May 28, 2003, 4:14 pm

I agree with the person who stated that driving is a privilege not a right. If the woman refuses to show her face then don't give her a license. It would be entirely too easy for people to claim religiousness and get a ID that they could then pass out to anybody who is wearing a veil. A veiled photo is not an ID.

Deward

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 28, 2003, 4:26 pm

Actually unless I'm mistaken Florida law does not state that you need a 'full face' photograph, here is the law just in case your wondering.
Here's the law in case you don't want to follow the link.

322.14 Licenses issued to drivers.--

(1)(a) The department shall, upon successful completion of all required examinations and payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefor, a driver's license as applied for, which license shall bear thereon a color photograph or digital image of the licensee; the name of the state; a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee; and the licensee's full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a brief description of the licensee, including, but not limited to, the licensee's gender and height; and the dates of issuance and expiration of the license. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature. No license shall be valid until it has been so signed by the licensee except that the signature of said licensee shall not be required if it appears thereon in facsimile or if the licensee is not present within the state at the time of issuance. Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license pursuant to s. 322.142.

There is no specific definition for a color photograph or digital image in the definition section.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 28, 2003, 4:29 pm

It will soon. Will that sentence make everything ok?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 28, 2003, 5:08 pm

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So if a law was passed that required for woman to remove their veils in public I would consider that prohibiting the free exersise thereof. Now are there mitigating circumstances for wanted a full face picture, yes I believe there are. However, are those circumstances enough to overwrite the spirit of the consitution? That is really a question for congress and the high court, however, I would hope that this momentary wave of fear driven paranoia won't affect everything that has been fought for and built on in the past two hundred plus years. They allowed her to get a license with her veil on before 9/11 to say that they are not targeting her because of what happened is plainly false and insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 28, 2003, 5:55 pm

If they let her take her picture with her veil on before 9/11, that's completely ludicrous. It has nothing to do with her being Muslim either, at least in my opinion. If a fucking KKK guy wanted his picture taken with his hood on I'd say the same damn thing. Or the phantom of the opera or Spiderman or anyone whose face is not visible in their driver's license picture.

The picture is used for identification, and her rights to practice her religion are not being violated by having her picture taken. So she can't take it off in public, perhaps they need to make a special provision for her to be photographed behind closed doors or by a woman or however it works. And if you want to match the picture up, detain her until she can be taken somewhere behind closed doors and someone can verify. I'm sure she won't care too much for that, but as far as easy proof for someone who pulls you over for a speeding ticket goes, looking at a picture and then looking at the person is the fastest way to have a decent idea if they are the same people.

As an aside, how do they do passports/identification in countries where they have a large population of people who must obscure their faces?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 28, 2003, 7:36 pm

She's an idiot, next.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 28, 2003, 8:09 pm

I love the gusto with which you assail life, Dregor.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 28, 2003, 9:05 pm

But he's right, Acies...

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 28, 2003, 9:11 pm

I never said he was wrong

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 28, 2003, 10:22 pm

if a religion called apon you to go to peoples houses and kill there cats and dogs becouse cats and dogs are the tools of the devil, should they be able to carry out there religious freedom? fuck no.
For obvious purposes you need to have a picture on your drivers licence, and if she refuses to show her face in her picture then that is her choice and freedom, and she denies the right to own a valid drivers licence

if they make an exception to this, some chick could say she became muslim and do the same, and have her 14 year old sister or illigal driver use her licence and just cover up in the car, you cant just make an exception for someone becouse there of religion a

I dont mean to be bashing the muslim religion, but could there be anything more downgrading and anti feminist for women to have to cover themselfs up, and not men?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 28, 2003, 11:05 pm

Why is it that people always bring up the most ludicrous example when they are trying to make a point? If you want a better example of what this would be like, well how about this. We should have a law that requires all men to shave their faces when they take a picture for their driver’s license. Obviously we need 100% identification on someone on a license and beards were never covered under the constitution, unless it's covered under freedom of religion.

if they make an exception to this, some chick could say she became muslim and do the same, and have her 14 year old sister or illigal driver use her licence and just cover up in the car, you cant just make an exception for someone becouse there of religion a

See the thing is the exception is being made in taking away her license since the law of Florida does not require that you have a 'full face' photograph. I posted the law in a previous post if you wish to review it. Plus the fact that there are other physical characteristic such as height, weight, hair and eye color. So the hypothetical you pose would be highly unlikely. Plus the fact that it would be easier just to get a fake id then to do this.

Overall the law is not behind what they have done and neither is the spirit of the constitution. You can let your fears run your life, but please don't try to change the fabric of our country with you reactionary measures.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 28, 2003, 11:17 pm

if you have facial hair or not you can still generally tell who you are, but if your going to cover up your entire face does that not totally take away the point of having "photo id" ? and if your wearing a big cblack cloth over your head, and your head is the only thing in the picture do you think someone could tell if your a fatass or anorexic?

you do not understand that there is a huge difference between having the freedom of religion, and a religion interfering the freedoms and rights of other americans becouse there religion finds it immoral

the law is not forcing for a religious person to deny there religious freedoms, but that they have a choice to deny getting a unmasked picture, yet that it would be invalid

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 28, 2003, 11:27 pm

Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license pursuant to s. 322.142.

Can you either post the link to where you found this or quote s. 322.142 please.

Nevermind, I found it:

http://www.floridaconservation.org/codebook/322.pdf wrote:(1) The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for an original driver's license a color photographic or digital image driver's licence bearing a fullface photograph or digital image of the licensee. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature, as required in s. 322.14, in the presence of an authorized agent of the department so as to ensure that such signature becomes a part of the license.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » May 28, 2003, 11:37 pm

Here's where you get into the spirit of the law. While it does not specify a "full facial" photograph it is commonly accepted and understood that the photograph will be of someone's face, not a robe with nothing but a pair of eyes. It is an identification document that requires a photograph of the recipient. Period.

The burden is not upon the State of Florida to specify this. They are well within their rights to interpret the law as they see fit. If their interpretation is no veil, then the lady either gives up her license or complies.

Who cares if she can drive legally or not. She'll most likely be just like the majority of folks who have their licenses taken away for various reasons and drive anyway.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 28, 2003, 11:45 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license pursuant to s. 322.142.
Can you either post the link to where you found this or quote s. 322.142 please.

Wow, a standard search for s. 322.142 found the answer!

First a link to the whole s.322 http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index. ... hapter+322

Next a link to s. 322.142 specifically as it appears off of the prior link http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index. ... tion%20142

I only left the entire link visible to show a way to actually locate information on laws no matter how obscure.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 28, 2003, 11:59 pm

Yeah, read my edit above. I was typing the pdf out as you were replying. That, and I didn't see the link in Crav's post

valryte · Post by **valryte** » May 29, 2003, 3:23 am

Wanna drive? show your fking face bitch. Don't want to show it? Fine, stick your thumb out and hitchhike! Constitution isn't going to help you. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » May 29, 2003, 4:41 am

Another aspect of this I've not seen mentioned is from a retail/financial standpoint.

Accepting checks and credit cards, etc. from an individual where a positive identity cannot be established is very risky. Credit card fraud is far too rampant these days to let something like that slip through without a major challenge.

If she were to go to a Circle-K and want to buy beer, I can't imagine them accepting that as positive ID for legal purposes. I'm guessing there are regulations that require them to accept certain forms of ID, but if I recall, the burden of establishing positive ID on purchases of alcohol and cigarettes falls on the retailer in all cases and they face penalties for failing to do so.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 29, 2003, 5:09 am

This woman is idiotic. Freedom of religion ends where the safety of others begins. The whole purpose of identification is to identify somebody (/golf clap) should they do something wrong/illegal. If she's not willing to compromise then she shouldn't be on the road.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 29, 2003, 5:59 am

Well Jedi is almost an official religion in the UK so I'm going to get a passport done with my Darth Vader helmet on.

So nur.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 10:26 am

The burden is not upon the State of Florida to specify this. They are well within their rights to interpret the law as they see fit. If their interpretation is no veil, then the lady either gives up her license or complies.

Actually the government of the state does not have the right to interpret the law as they see fit, that is up to the courts.

Wanna drive? show your fking face bitch. Don't want to show it? Fine, stick your thumb out and hitchhike! Constitution isn't going to help you. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.

See this is not about the right to drive, this is about the rights of the state to make a law that infringes on your constitutional rights. By making the law read that you can not wear a veil, a custom and tradition in Muslim religion the state is making the law so that it intefers with her right to practice her religion.

If we begin condoning the erosion of our constitutional rights where will it end? If we are looking at the welfare of the people wouldn't it be better to violate the the second amendment and pass a law banning all guns to the public? Shouldn't we ban freedom of speech because well quite franically it is dangerous to the people and the government. Where do you want to stop really?

I know this is just a stupid veil, but every major change begins with a very small opening act.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 29, 2003, 10:35 am

Crav wrote:
The burden is not upon the State of Florida to specify this. They are well within their rights to interpret the law as they see fit. If their interpretation is no veil, then the lady either gives up her license or complies.
Actually the government of the state does not have the right to interpret the law as they see fit, that is up to the courts.

Wanna drive? show your fking face bitch. Don't want to show it? Fine, stick your thumb out and hitchhike! Constitution isn't going to help you. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.
See this is not about the right to drive, this is about the rights of the state to make a law that infringes on your constitutional rights. By making the law read that you can not wear a veil, a custom and tradition in Muslim religion the state is making the law so that it intefers with her right to practice her religion.

If we begin condoning the erosion of our constitutional rights where will it end? If we are looking at the welfare of the people wouldn't it be better to violate the the second amendment and pass a law banning all guns to the public? Shouldn't we ban freedom of speech because well quite franically it is dangerous to the people and the government. Where do you want to stop really?

I know this is just a stupid veil, but every major change begins with a very small opening act.

Well they are not making a law that says she cannot wear a veil. It is a photo for ID purposes. If she was pulled over by a police officer and asked to temporarily remove her veil, again for ID purposes, is it reasonable to expect she should comply?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 29, 2003, 10:42 am

Crav wrote:
The burden is not upon the State of Florida to specify this. They are well within their rights to interpret the law as they see fit. If their interpretation is no veil, then the lady either gives up her license or complies.
Actually the government of the state does not have the right to interpret the law as they see fit, that is up to the courts.

Wanna drive? show your fking face bitch. Don't want to show it? Fine, stick your thumb out and hitchhike! Constitution isn't going to help you. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.
See this is not about the right to drive, this is about the rights of the state to make a law that infringes on your constitutional rights. By making the law read that you can not wear a veil, a custom and tradition in Muslim religion the state is making the law so that it intefers with her right to practice her religion.

If we begin condoning the erosion of our constitutional rights where will it end? If we are looking at the welfare of the people wouldn't it be better to violate the the second amendment and pass a law banning all guns to the public? Shouldn't we ban freedom of speech because well quite franically it is dangerous to the people and the government. Where do you want to stop really?

I know this is just a stupid veil, but every major change begins with a very small opening act.

Bullshit. The entire purpose of the photo isn't to be a means of expressing ones personal views, it's to say, "Hey, that's me, so give me that ticket!". She may as well use a picture of a donkey's ass for her ID if she's gonna use a picture with a veil. Actually.. the donkey's ass may be more accurate.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 10:48 am

They are attempting to make the law read that she can not wear her veil. The law as written does not say that the 'color photograph or digital image' has to show your face. Yes any layman can say that the spirit of the law means that they want to identify you so it should be a picture showing your face. However, as someone on another thread pointed out the days where the spirit of the law was enough are gone. It left when people and the government used the law for their own selfish purposes to keep certain people from voting or to arrest people who in their words got "uppity".

As people say this a country of and ruled by law. The tyrants we are suppose to be fighting follow the spirit of the laws they create, after all Saddam was president not king of his country, wasn't he follow the spirit of his laws? If you want to argue that you feel we should change our laws and our constitution because of the current situation we are in then please do so, but please don't hide behind false reasons.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 29, 2003, 12:29 pm

Yes, I'm quite sure that by "a fullface photograph" the writers of Florida meant a picture of some fucking veil. I can claim that I'm a ninja for hire, and that taking my mask off impinges on my ability to earn a living.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 29, 2003, 12:36 pm

Crav, I don't want to flame you on your reading comprehension but 133.142 specifically states that the license must bear a FULLFACEphotograph/digital image.

(1) The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for an original driver's license a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license bearing a fullface photograph or digital image of the licensee. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature, as required in s. 322.14, in the presence of an authorized agent of the department so as to ensure that such signature becomes a part of the license.

An identification photograph with 95% of the face obscured by a garment of clothing is not 'fullface'.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 12:50 pm

Crav, I don't want to flame you on your reading comprehension but 133.142 specifically states that the license must bear a FULLFACEphotograph/digital image.

Sorry I couldn't find statute 133.142 in the Florida law. The law you are quoting is statute 322.14, which I had previous posted and will do so again.

322.14 Licenses issued to drivers.--

(1)(a) The department shall, upon successful completion of all required examinations and payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefor, a driver's license as applied for, which license shall bear thereon a color photograph or digital image of the licensee; the name of the state; a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee; and the licensee's full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a brief description of the licensee, including, but not limited to, the licensee's gender and height; and the dates of issuance and expiration of the license. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature. No license shall be valid until it has been so signed by the licensee except that the signature of said licensee shall not be required if it appears thereon in facsimile or if the licensee is not present within the state at the time of issuance. Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license pursuant to s. 322.142.

Here is the link to the webpage for the senate of Florida where their laws are kept online.

If you can find a link to statute 133.142 please post it the closest I found was the statues for General Refunds.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 29, 2003, 12:52 pm

Look at my post Crav. It has that part quoted.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 29, 2003, 12:52 pm

Neost wrote:

Who cares if she can drive legally or not. She'll most likely be just like the majority of folks who have their licenses taken away for various reasons and drive anyway.

and we are talking about Florida here...where i would not be surprised if 20% of the people dont have licesnses

miir · Post by **miir** » May 29, 2003, 1:00 pm

Sorry I couldn't find statute 133.142 in the Florida law. The law you are quoting is statute 322.14, which I had previous posted and will do so again.

*bangs head against desk*

Chapter 322 - DRIVERS LICENSES

about 1/3 down the page

322.142 Color photographic or digital imaged licenses.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 1:14 pm

Hate to be nitpicky about this, but what exactly is that a site for Vetiria? It's blocked here at work it says it's a "Society and Lifestyles" web page. The site I posted my links from are from the official internet site of the Florida Legislature. Also the statute you quoted seems a bit cut off and not complete. I know we're arguing symantics, but hey that is pretty much all the law is.

Mawafu · Post by **Mawafu** » May 29, 2003, 1:27 pm

You're not being nitpicky, you're being fucking lazy. Click on the "322.142" on YOUR link and the first paragraph you'll see is:

(1) The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for an original driver's license a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license bearing a fullface photograph or digital image of the licensee. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature, as required in s. 322.14, in the presence of an authorized agent of the department so as to ensure that such signature becomes a part of the license.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 29, 2003, 1:38 pm

I don't know what that site is for. It came up on a google search. It had the law, so that's all I cared about. Three other people have posted the same thing so far, and you've ignored it every time.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 29, 2003, 1:39 pm

Crav wrote:Hate to be nitpicky about this, but what exactly is that a site for Vetiria? It's blocked here at work it says it's a "Society and Lifestyles" web page. The site I posted my links from are from the official internet site of the Florida Legislature. Also the statute you quoted seems a bit cut off and not complete. I know we're arguing symantics, but hey that is pretty much all the law is.

Do you have me and Boogahz on ignore or are you a just a complete fucking moron?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 2:08 pm

Ok I apologize and please don't bang your head against anything that tends to hurt

. I did not read section 142 of the 322 statute. I concead my ignorance of that provision as the statute as read on 322.14 does not state full face photograph. I do hope you understand that it was not my comphresion of what was written on statute 322.142, but my lack of forsight as to it's excistence. I will argue that full face has to be further defined in order for the law be constitutional, but that is another discussion. I will go further as to say that I believe that the actions taken against the woman were reactionary to the fear that has so changed our country for the worse.

Ajran · Post by **Ajran** » May 29, 2003, 2:34 pm

Crav wrote:
Wanna drive? show your fking face bitch. Don't want to show it? Fine, stick your thumb out and hitchhike! Constitution isn't going to help you. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.
See this is not about the right to drive, this is about the rights of the state to make a law that infringes on your constitutional rights. By making the law read that you can not wear a veil, a custom and tradition in Muslim religion the state is making the law so that it intefers with her right to practice her religion.

but since having a drivers license is not a right but a privledge they can make the requirements for getting one any that they choose.. you either comply or you don't.. if you refuse to meet the requirements.. yes that is your right.. but you will not be given the privledge of driving a vehichle.

Its her choice to have a drivers license or not.. There is no law that says she HAS to have one.. so therefore a law stating you must have a full faced photograph to get something you are not required by law to have does not violate anyone constitutional rights..

she's an idiot and i hope the public transportation system in florida is adequate for her needs.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » May 29, 2003, 2:49 pm

That's it, I'm joining the religious sect of liquor store robbers. I'm gonna go into DMV wearing a ski mask and say it's my constitutional right to express my religion and that's how I want my picture taken!

Mort · Post by **Mort** » May 29, 2003, 4:17 pm

Crav wrote:I will go further as to say that I believe that the actions taken against the woman were reactionary to the fear that has so changed our country for the worse.

Spoken like a true card carrying member of the ACLU. WTF, you actually agree with this cyco bitch?

Changed our Country for the worse? 9/11 did that pal, wake the fuck up.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 29, 2003, 4:39 pm

but since having a drivers license is not a right but a privledge they can make the requirements for getting one any that they choose.. you either comply or you don't.. if you refuse to meet the requirements.. yes that is your right.. but you will not be given the privledge of driving a vehichle.

I don't know this sounds a bit fishy to me, if this was true then the logic would state that they could make it so that only people under 40 could receive a drivers license. Or only people that make a certain amount of money each year say over $150,000 could drive. I recognize that the right to drive has not been protected under the constitutional right to travel in most cases where this has been challenged, so you are correct in saying the other rights provided under the constitution would not apply to the requirements for a drivers license. I fear that if this is true then there is something very wrong here as this would completely undermine everything that has been fought for over the past 200 plus year in this country.

Posted: May 29, 2003, 2:17 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crav wrote:
I will go further as to say that I believe that the actions taken against the woman were reactionary to the fear that has so changed our country for the worse.

Spoken like a true card carrying member of the ACLU. WTF, you actually agree with this cyco bitch?

Changed our Country for the worse? 9/11 did that pal, wake the fuck up.

I never said I agree or disagree with her actions, I am only saying that the state does not have the right to force someone to choose between their faith and their involvement with their community as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

I have always been of the belief that the only one that controls change in a person or a state is that person or state itself. You can not control other people's actions, you can only control your response to said action. 9/11 was a terrible thing, but what is more terrible is the changes that we as a people have allowed to happen to our country since then.

Ajran · Post by **Ajran** » May 29, 2003, 5:42 pm

Crav wrote:I am only saying that the state does not have the right to force someone to choose between their faith and their involvement with their community as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

THEY ARE NOT FORCING ANYTHING IT IS HER GOD DAMNED CHOICE.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 29, 2003, 5:59 pm

Or only people that make a certain amount of money each year

Well to be able to drive a vehicle DOES demand you make a certain amount: enough to cover the cost of the vehicle(or rental), and the associated fuel, insurance and any other related costs.

I recognize that the right to drive has not been protected under the constitutional right to travel in most cases where this has been challenged, so you are correct in saying the other rights provided under the constitution would not apply to the requirements for a drivers license. I fear that if this is true then there is something very wrong here as this would completely undermine everything that has been fought for over the past 200 plus year in this country.

Why the hell SHOULD the "right" to drive be protected by your constitution? She has the right to buy an airplane ticket, a bus ticket, take a taxi, walk or ride a bicycle/donkey/horse/other non-motorized mode of transportation. Not being allowed the priviledge of driving does not infringe upon any rights: it infringes perhaps upon convenience. By YOUR "logic" suspending the licenses of people convicted of drunk driving, dangerous driving or other vehicular offenses would have to be unconstitutional? Shoot yourself with the firearm you have the right to bear: you're too stupid to live.

I am only saying that the state does not have the right to force someone to choose between their faith and their involvement with their community as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

Again you are lumping this into the wrong category. She is chosing not to comply with regulations regarding a regulated activity (operating a motor vehicle) and thereby exempting herself from elligibility.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 29, 2003, 6:16 pm

Some interesting details in this blog (see actual article for links to sources):
http://www.niqabiparalegal.com/archives/005422.php

First of all, even scholars who consider the face veil to be obligatory (which is a minority of scholars) permit a woman to uncover her face in public when her identity needs to be verified. See for example this ruling by conservative Saudi scholar Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid.

At the same time, I don't see why Sultana Freeman's license was revoked. Her ability to drive doesn't depend on her having a photo ID. Why not offer to give her a "paper" driver's license (i.e., no photo) that proves she's qualified to operate a motor vehicle? In situations where that's all that's at issue, she won't have to needlessly display a photo with her unveiled face when she pulls out her license. And she can get a separate photo ID for those situations when it's her identity not her qualification to drive that's at issue.

I think Freeman is wrongheaded to want to wear a face veil for photo ID, but I also think that the state of Florida is wrongheaded for denying her the right to drive (by revoking her license) because she wants what is in effect a non-photo driver's license.

In an interesting twist, Freeman formerly lived in Illinois. As it turns out, Illinois law permits people to get a non-photo driver's license for religious reasons (confirmed in this PDF document from the Illinois Secretary of State's office). Oddly enough, Illinois had issued Freeman a photo license in which she was wearing the face veil instead of asking her to claim the religious exemption and apply for a non-photo license, according to the article.

My research also found that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration allows states to issue non-photo commercial driver's licenses if the driver has religious objections to a photo license. I'm looking to see what other jurisdictions allow non-photo driver's licenses for religious reasons.

Also, here's a lengthly article about driver's license integrity in the post-9/11 world. It generally argues against the trend to make driver's licenses serve as identity licenses.